-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
159
The Practice of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge of
Teacher Educators in Education Colleges in Myanmar
Win Thinzarkyaw Assistant Lecturer, Department of Educational
Theory, Yankin Education College, Yangon,
Myanmar and PhD Candidate, School of Education, Central China
Normal University, Wuhan, China
ORCID: 0000-0002-3393-9802
Received: 13 Nov 2019 Accepted: 27 Nov 2019 Published: 17 Dec
2019
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the practice of
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of teacher
educators (N=108) in three Education Colleges in Myanmar. A
quantitative survey research design focusing on a set of
questionnaire was used. The results showed that there were no
significant differences in the TPACK-based practices of teacher
educators in terms of their Education College, experience, degree,
rank, department and gender. However, significant differences were
unearthed in their practices of technological knowledge according
to their experience and degree. Besides, by their ranks,
significant differences were found in the practice of technological
and content knowledge.
Keywords: teacher educators, technological pedagogical content
knowledge, education colleges
INTRODUCTION
In the nineteenth century, the predominant notion was that
strong subject matter knowledge was enough for teachers to be able
to teach new content. However, this notion shifts with the
awareness of the importance of pedagogical knowledge and knowledge
of the content when it came to the early twentieth century. Towards
the end of the twentieth century, perceptions about the knowledge
of teacher was recognized as the combination of content and
pedagogy, as well as the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
described by the intersection of content and pedagogy (Angeli &
Valanides, 2015). However, in the twenty-first century, teaching
requires considerably more than delivering subject matter knowledge
to students, and student learning is considerably more than
absorbing information for later retrieval. Therefore, knowledge of
technology becomes an important aspect of overall teacher knowledge
in this globalization age as one of the strengths of technology is
to support student learning rather than as a tool to deliver the
content. As a consequence, teachers not only need to know how to
use information and communication technologies (ICT), but also have
an awareness of the strategies to incorporate them into teaching a
particular subject’s content to enhance student learning.
IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY
As a result of the speedy advances in information and
communication technology area, and the demand to achieve the 21st
century skills in this globalization age, global trends in
higher
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
160
education are moving towards using digital pedagogies (Goradia,
2018). It means that technology has already been using in teaching
with the aim of improving students’ engagement and achievement in
their learning. Therefore, it is widely accepted that knowledge
related to technology of education plays an important role in all
aspects of teacher’ knowledge.
As mentioned, technology has become an essential proficiency of
teachers required in teaching at the higher education level.
However, many professional development programs mostly emphasize on
learning specific applications related to technology but rarely on
how to approach the content by using technology. To remove this
barrier, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
framework provides a way to integrate pedagogical, content, and
technological knowledge in order to produce effective teaching with
technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Therefore, many research studies related to technological
pedagogical content knowledge have been done during this decade.
However, studies based on the TPACK theoretical framework have been
mostly carried out with pre-service teachers, but researches
conducted with the teacher educators participants are still limited
till now, especially in higher education (Can, Erokten, &
Bahtiyar, 2017; Karaca, 2015; Keser, Yılmaz, & Yılmaz, 2015;
Kou, 2015; Özdemir, 2006). Moreover, the results of many studies
that focused on the development of instruments related to TPACK
confirmed TPACK framework and also the seven subscales of it
(Kiray, 2016; Nordin & Ariffin, 2016; Sahin, 2011).
Furthermore, there were studies that tried to determine the factors
which influence on teachers’ TPACK levels. In addition, the results
of many studies uncovered that gender and professional experience
of teachers influenced their TPACK levels (Akturk & Ozturk,
2019; Alqurashi, Gokbel, & Carbonara, 2016; Jang & Chang,
2016; Ozudogru & Ozudogru, 2019).
Many studies related to teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge
have been done in Myanmar. Unfortunately, very few studies
concerned with teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge was carried out, especially in Education Colleges. Thus,
this study was carried out with the aim of investigating the
practice of teacher educators’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge in their profession in the context of Myanmar.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
As technologies have gradually been integrated in teaching
learning process, new technology integration models have been
developed by many scholars. Among them, the framework that becomes
popular after 2006 is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006). They declared that
the three main components of teachers’ knowledge: content,
pedagogy, and technology are at the heart of TPACK as this
framework was developed based on pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK) of Shulman (1986). Shulman (1987) asserted that among the
seven categories of teacher’s knowledge: content knowledge, general
pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content
knowledge, knowledge of learners and their characteristics,
knowledge of educational contexts, and knowledge of educational
ends, purposes, and values, and their philosophical and historical
grounds, pedagogical content knowledge is of special interest as it
represents the unique bodies of knowledge for teaching that
distinguishes teachers from content specialists. Therefore,
pedagogical content knowledge was defined as:
“... the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding
of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized,
represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of
learners, and presented for
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
161
instruction. It is the category most likely to distinguish the
understanding of the content specialist from that of the pedagogue”
(Shulman, 1987).
The definition of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) by
Loughran, Berry, and Mulhall (2012) was that it is the knowledge
about how to teach particular content in particular ways with the
aim of strengthening student understanding that teachers gradually
develop by means of experience. They also mentioned that PCK of
teachers may be different from each other depending on the teaching
context, content, and their experience but it is, nevertheless, a
corner stone of teachers’ professional knowledge and expertise.
Angeli and Valanides (2015) stated that TPACK framework
characterizes the knowledge that teachers focus on, when designing
and implementing curriculum and instruction, while guiding the way
of thinking and learning of their students with digital
technologies in various content areas. Therefore, TPACK model of
Koehler and Mishra (2009) describes teacher’s knowledge as a result
of combination of seven knowledge dimensions: technological
knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), content knowledge (CK),
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological content
knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) that are equally
important in this model.
Technological knowledge (TK) is knowledge about technologies
ranging from standard to digital technologies, and involves the
skills required to operate particular technologies (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006).
Pedagogical knowledge (PK) includes the knowledge of strategies
and principles of teaching, classroom management and organization
in education (Shulman, 1987).
Content knowledge (CK) is the amount of the actual knowledge and
organization in the mind of the teacher (Shulman, 1986). It is the
depth and breadth of knowledge in a specific content area (Doering,
Veletsianos, Scharber, & Miller, 2009).
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) is the combination of the
rich knowledge of pedagogy and content together, each shaping and
interacting with the other so that what is taught, and how it is
constructed are purposefully created to ensure that the content is
better understood by students in a given context because of the way
the teaching has been organized, planned, analyzed and presented
(Loughran et al., 2012).
Technological content knowledge (TCK) is the knowledge of
various technologies and their uses in teaching depending on the
nature of the content and to change the way learners understand the
concepts (Padmavathi, 2017).
Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) is the knowledge of
using pedagogical strategies appropriate to technological tools and
the knowledge of how teaching might change as a result of using
particular technologies (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) is the
knowledge teachers rely on while guiding their students’ thinking
and learning of specific content areas with particular technologies
efficiently (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
162
According to Mishra and Koehler, (2006), TPACK framework
contributes an analytic framework and categorization schemes for
the analysis of teacher knowledge and its evolution. What is more,
it imparts how to design pedagogical strategies and an analytic
ways to examine the changes in educators’ knowledge about
successful teaching with technology. Additionally, it allows not
only to understand about the effective teaching with technology but
also to make predictions and assumptions about contexts under which
such good teaching will occur. Moreover, it offers the ways of
analysis and development of a complex phenomenon of technology
integration and offers considerable options for further researches
in teacher education, teacher professional development, and
teachers’ use of technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
PURPOSES
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the practice
of technological pedagogical content knowledge of teacher educators
in Education Colleges in Myanmar.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What are the practices of teacher educators’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge in Education Colleges in Myanmar?
2. Do the practices of teacher educators’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge vary with respect to their (1)
Education College (2) teaching experience (3) degree (4) rank (5)
department, and (6) gender?
Figure 1. The TPACK framework and its knowledge components
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009)
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
163
RESEARCH METHOD
Research Design
The research design applied in this study is a descriptive
survey in which the quantitative data were collected by a set of
predetermined questionnaire.
Scope of the Study
The following points indicate the scope of the study.
• This study was carried out in three education colleges in
Yangon Region, Myanmar.
• The participants in this study were teacher educators from
three education colleges in Yangon Region, Myanmar.
Sample of the Study
The sample of the study was comprised of all teacher educators
from three education colleges - Thingangyun (TEC), Yankin (YEC),
Hlegu (HEC) in Yangon Region, Myanmar, except those who were
engaged in their class schedules during the survey. The sample can
be organized as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic data of participants or teacher educators
Category Subcategories Number Total
Education College Thingangyun (TEC) 35
108 Yankin (YEC) 41 Hlegu (HEC) 32
Gender Male 12
108 Female 96
Teaching Service
1-10 years 35
108 11-20 years 38 21-30 years 9 Above 31 years 26
Degree
Master of Arts/ Science (MA, MSc) 46
108 Bachelor of Education (BEd) 38 Master of Education (MEd) 20
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 4
Rank Tutor 33
108 Assistant Lecturer 18 Lecturer 57
Department Academic 53
108 Education 55
Instruments
The instruments used in this study were a predetermined
questionnaire which was comprised of two parts. The first part was
related to some demographic data such as Education colleges and
departments where the participants are working currently, gender,
their teaching experiences, their educational qualifications and
ranks. The second part of the questionnaire was composed of 45
items constructed by Ismail Sahin (2011) based on Mishra and
Koehler (2006) model: 14 items were related to technological
knowledge, 6 items to pedagogy knowledge, 6 items to content
knowledge, 4 items to technological pedagogical knowledge, 7 items
to pedagogical content knowledge, 3 items to technological content
knowledge and 5
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
164
items were related to technological pedagogical content
knowledge. The rating scale for the response was set in 5-point
Likert as “never”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, “often” and “always”.
Procedure
First, the relevant literature was reviewed. Then, the
instrument questionnaire constructed by Ismail Sahin (2011) based
on Mishra and Koehler (2006) model was modified and translated into
Myanmar language. Three teacher educators (a retired professor of
education, an associate professor of education from the Methodology
Department, Sagaing University of Education, and an assistant
lecturer from the Methodology Department, Yankin Education College)
were requested for expert review for the validation of the
questionnaire. After that, the study was piloted with 20 teacher
educators in Thingangyun Education College. The items were modified
and the data obtained from the pilot study were calculated by the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The internal consistency for the
questionnaire was (0.785). The main survey was completed in three
Education Colleges in Yangon Region, Myanmar in March, 2019.
Analysis of the Data
The data were analyzed by calculating the means of each
dimension in order to determine the practice of technological
pedagogical content knowledge of teacher educators from the
selected education colleges. Moreover, the dependent variables were
normally distributed within each group according to the result of a
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Therefore, descriptive statistics, one-way
ANOVA, Post Hoc Multiple Comparison Test and Independent Samples t
Test were used to analyze whether there is a significant difference
in the practice of technological pedagogical content knowledge
among teacher educators in terms of their Education College,
teaching service, degree, rank, department and gender.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Findings of the Practice of Teacher Educators’ TPACK in the
Selected Education Colleges
To determine the practice of teacher educators’ TPACK,
descriptive data (mean and standard deviation) of the TPACK survey
scores were calculated. The results of the analysis were given in
Table 2.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations of the practice of each
dimension of teacher educators’ TPACK Dimension N 𝐗𝐗� SD
Technological Knowledge (TK) 108 2.58 .878 Pedagogical Knowledge
(PK) 108 3.82 .745 Content Knowledge (CK) 108 3.67 .641
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) 108 3.32 .722 Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK) 108 3.96 .675 Technological Content
Knowledge (TCK) 108 3.43 .957 Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPCK) 108 3.11 .726
The comparison of means of each dimension of teacher educators’
TPACK indicated that the means of technology related dimensions
(TK, TPK, TCK and TPCK) were lower than other dimensions (see Table
2). Among them, the mean of technology knowledge dimension (X�=
2.58) was the lowest whilst that of pedagogical content knowledge
dimension (X�= 3.96) was the highest compared to others. Moreover,
the means of pedagogical knowledge dimension and
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
165
technological pedagogical content knowledge dimension stood at
the second highest and lowest positions (X�= 3.82 and X�= 3.11)
respectively whereas content knowledge, technological content
knowledge and technological pedagogical knowledge followed
subsequently. It means that teacher educators rarely applied their
knowledge of technology in their teaching and other dimensions of
TPACK were utilized on some occasions as their means were around
3.0.
Findings of the Practice of TPACK among the Teacher Educators
according to their Education Colleges
In order to compare the selected education colleges on the
practice of teacher educators’ TPACK, descriptive data (mean and
standard deviation) of the TPACK survey scores were calculated. The
participants were divided into three groups according to their
education colleges (group 1; Thingangyun Education College, group
2; Yankin Education College and group 3; Hlegu Education College).
The results of the analysis were given in Table 3.
Table 3. Means and standard deviations of three education
colleges
EC N TK (𝐗𝐗�, SD) PK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) CK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TPK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) PCK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TCK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TPCK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TPACK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
TEC 35 2.71, .928 3.78, .806 3.69, .638 3.26, .838 3.95, .592
3.34, 1.021 3.05, .758 3.40, .577 YEC 41 2.67, .879 4.00, .706
3.74, .635 3.50, .597 4.08, .613 3.51, .907 3.21, .705 3.53, .451
HEC 32 2.32, .788 3.63, .691 3.56, .659 3.15, .701 3.82, .813 3.41,
.968 3.04, .723 3.27, .542 Total 108 2.58,.878 3.82, .745 3.67,
.641 3.32, .722 3.96, .675 3.43, .957 3.11, .726 3.41, .528
In the dimensions of PK, CK, TPK, PCK, TCK and TPCK, the means
of YEC were the highest among the selected education colleges while
the mean of TEC was the highest in the dimension of TK (see Table
3). Furthermore, the means of TEC stayed on the second highest
status in other dimensions except the dimension of TCK. The point
is that the mean of HEC stood third as its means were at the lowest
in other dimensions. To sum up, the total mean (TPACK) of YEC
(X�=3.53) outperformed those of TEC and HEC (X�=3.40 and X�= 3.27)
respectively. Therefore, it can be interpreted that teacher
educators from Yankin Education College applied their TPACK in
their profession more than those of Thingangyun and Helgu Education
Colleges. Moreover, they rarely applied technological knowledge in
their teaching as the means of three education colleges resulted
below 3.0.
One way ANOVA was used to explore the significant level of the
utilization of Teacher Educators’ TPACK among the selected
Education Colleges.
Table 4 showed that there was no significant difference among
the selected Education Colleges in the practice of teacher
educators’ TPACK, F (2, 105) = 2.189, p=.117. Moreover, no
statistically significant difference was found among these three
Education Colleges in all the dimensions of TPACK. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the application levels of TPACK among the
teacher educators of the selected Education Colleges were almost
the same.
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
166
Findings of the Practice of Teacher Educators’ TPACK in terms of
Teaching Service
In order to make a comparison on the application levels of TPACK
among the teacher educators in terms of their teaching experience,
descriptive data was calculated. The participants were divided into
four groups according to their teaching experience (group 1; 1-10
years, group 2; 11-20 years, group 3; 21-30 years and group 4;
above 31). The results were shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Means and standard deviations of the teacher educators
in terms of their teaching service
Teaching Service N
TK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
PK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
CK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
TPK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
PCK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
TCK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
TPCK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
TPACK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
1-10 Yrs 35 2.99,.718 3.92,.574 3.66,.506 3.28,.742 3.78,.547
3.26,.987 2.90,.727 3.40,.519 11-20 Yrs 38 2.74,.859 3.78,.884
3.72,.715 3.39,.764 3.99,.649 3.56,.949 3.17,.698 3.48,.576 21-30
Yrs 9 1.87,.606 3.80,.655 3.85,.704 3.50,.625 4.08,.866 3.63,.889
3.51,.736 3.46,.500
Above 31 Yrs 26 2.04,.796 3.76,.785 3.53,.680 3.20,.675
4.13,.770 3.38,.960 3.16,.716 3.31,.485 Total 108 2.58,.878
3.82,.745 3.67,.641 3.32,.722 3.96,.675 3.43,.957 3.11,.726
3.41,.528
The results of Table 5 revealed that the means of teacher
educators whose teaching service falls between 1 and 20 years were
found to be at the top in the dimensions of TK and PK though their
means were at the lowest in the dimensions of TCK, PCK and TPCK.
Interestingly, for those whose had between 11 and 20 years of
teaching service, their means never stayed at the highest and
lowest but the means of TK, PK and TPK dimensions were at the
second highest and the others at the second lowest. Moreover, while
the means of those whose teaching service was between 21 and 30
years showed the highest in the dimensions of CK, TPK, TCK and
TPCK, the means of those who had at least 31 years of teaching
experience had the highest PCK compared to others.
Table 4. ANOVA results comparing the selected education colleges
on applying teacher educators’ TPACK
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
TK Between Groups 3.100 2 1.550
2.050 .134 Within Groups 79.397 105 .756 Total 82.497 107
PK Between Groups 2.609 2 1.034
2.410 .095 Within Groups 56.843 105 .541 Total 59.451 107
CK Between Groups .591 2 .296
.715 .491 Within Groups 43.409 105 .413 Total 44.000 107
TPK Between Groups 2.379 2 1.189
2.341 .101 Within Groups 53.350 105 .508 Total 55.729 107
PCK Between Groups 1.249 2 .625
1.383 .255 Within Groups 47.438 105 .452 Total 48.687 107
TCK Between Groups .559 2 .280
.301 .740 Within Groups 97.404 105 .928 Total 97.963 107
TPCK Between Groups .734 2 .367
.693 .502 Within Groups 55.617 105 .530 Total 56.351 107
TPACK Between Groups 1.192 2 .596
2.189 .117 Within Groups 28.588 105 .272 Total 29.780 107
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
167
However, their means in the dimension of CK, PK and TPK were the
lowest. One interesting point is that the means of PCK dimension
increased according to the increment in their teaching
experience.
Thus, in general, it can be interpreted that young teacher
educators though they had the less teaching experience than others
utilized the TPACK more than others However, it was revealed that
PCK increased gradually with respect to the year of teaching
experience and the young teacher educators had much more TK than
others.
In order to investigate the statistically significant level in
comparing teacher educators by means of teaching service on
applying TPACK, one way ANOVA and Post Hoc Multiple Comparison
Tests were used.
The results highlighted that there was no statistically
significant difference among the teacher educators by their
teaching service in the application of TPACK, F(3, 104) = .532, p=
.661. However, statistically significant difference was found among
those in only one dimension of technological knowledge (TK), F(3,
104) = 10.299, p= .000 (see Table 6). The effect size, calculated
using eta squared, was .2. Post hoc Tukey HSD tests also indicated
that significant differences were found among the groups (X�= 2.99,
1-10 Yrs, X�= 2.79, 11-20 Yrs, X�= 1.87, 21-30 Yrs and X�= 2.04,
above 30 Yrs) in TK (p < .05) except between the groups of 1-10
years and 11-20 years. It means that the practice of teacher
educators’ TPACK did not differ according to their teaching
experience even though they had different practice of technological
knowledge in their teaching.
Table 6. ANOVA results comparing teacher educators in terms of
teaching service on the exploitation of TPACK
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Mean TK Between Groups 18.896 3 6.299 10.299 .000*** Within
Groups 63.601 104 .612
Total 82.497 107
Mean PK Between Groups .526 3 .175 .309 .818 Within Groups
58.925 104 .567
Total 59.451 107
Mean CK Between Groups .886 3 .295 .712 .547 Within Groups
43.114 104 .415
Total 44.000 107
Mean TPK Between Groups .926 3 .309 .586 .626 Within Groups
54.803 104 .527
Total 55.729 107
Mean PCK Between Groups 2.071 3 .690 1.540 .209 Within Groups
46.617 104 .448
Total 48.687 107
Mean TCK Between Groups 2.112 3 .704 .764 .517 Within Groups
95.851 104 .922
Total 97.963 107
Mean TPCK Between Groups 3.257 3 1.086 2.127 .101 Within Groups
53.094 104 .511
Total 56.351 107
Total Mean TPACK Between Groups .450 3 .150 .532 .661 Within
Groups 29.330 104 .282
Total 29.780 107 Note. ***p< .001
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
168
Findings of the Practice of Teacher Educators’ TPACK in terms of
their Degree
In order to compare the teacher educators’ application level of
TPACK according to their different degrees at the university, the
analysis of descriptive data was made where the participants were
divided into four groups according to their respective degrees:
group 1; MA/MSc degree holders, group 2; BEd degree holders, group
3; MEd degree holders and group 4; PhD degree holders. The result
can be seen in Table 7.
Table 7. Means and standard deviations of teacher educators by
means of their degree
Degree N TK (𝐗𝐗�, SD) PK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) CK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TPK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) PCK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TCK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TPCK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TPACK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
MA/MSc 46 2.77,.717 3.87,.746 3.64,.626 3.29,.713 3.86,.586
3.51, 1.063 2.93,.701 3.41,.534 BEd 38 2.21,.812 3.70,.752
3.55,.737 3.22,.757 3.91,.848 3.32,.958 3.19,.747 3.30,.541 MEd 20
2.80,1.088 3.89,.742 3.83,.433 3.46,.685 4.29,.433 3.47,.721
3.34,.726 3.58,.468 PhD 4 2.79,1.211 4.04,.821 4.25,.289 3.88,.479
3.89,.317 3.25,.877 3.20,.542 3.61,.486 Total 108 2.58,.878
3.82,.745 3.67,.641 3.32,.722 3.96,.675 3.43,.957 3.11,.726
3.41,.528
According to Table 7, the means of teacher educators holding PhD
degree were the highest in the dimensions of PK, CK and TPK whilst
the means of those BEd degree holders were at the lowest in those
dimensions in addition to TK. Moreover, in the dimensions of TK,
PCK and TPCK, the means of MEd degree holders stood at the peak and
remained at the second highest in other dimensions except TCK where
the means of those (MA/ MSc degree holders) were the highest and
PhD degree holders’ means were at the bottom. In short, the total
mean (TPACK) of PhD degree holders (X�= 3.61) exceed others which
was followed by the means of MEd, MA/MSc and BEd degree holders
successively (X�= 3.58, X�= 3.41 and X�= 3.30) respectively.
Therefore, it can be assumed that teacher educators who attained
the higher educational level applied TPACK more than those of lower
level attainment.
To find out the statistically significant difference in the
practice of TPACK among the teacher educators in terms of their
respective major, one way ANOVA and Post Hoc Multiple Comparison
Tests were computed.
Table 8 uncovered no statistically significant difference among
teacher educators’ application of TPACK in terms of their
respective degrees, F (3, 104) = 1.503, p= .218. Nevertheless,
there was statistically significant difference among those in the
dimension of technological knowledge, F (3,104) = 3.741, p= .013,
but none was found in other dimensions. The effect size, calculated
using eta squared, was .09. Moreover, as a result of Post hoc Tukey
HSD tests, significant differences were found between the groups of
BEd degree holders (X�=2.21) and MA/MSc degree holders (X�=2.77) in
TK (p < .05), but not in other groups. Thus, it can be assumed
that teacher educators had no difference in applying TPACK
according to their different degrees but they had different
background knowledge and application levels concerning with
technological knowledge.
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
169
Findings of the Practice of Teacher Educators’ TPACK in terms of
Rank
Descriptive data analysis was carried out to compare the
practice of TPACK of teacher educators in terms of their position.
The participants were divided into three groups according to their
ranks: group 1; tutors, group 2; assistant lecturers and group 3;
lecturers. A tutor is in the lowest position or rank in teaching
profession at the higher education level. An assistant lecturer is
higher in the position than a tutor and a lecturer is higher than
an assistant lecturer. The result was displayed in Table 9.
Table 9. Means and standard deviations of teacher educators by
means of their rank
Rank N TK (𝐗𝐗�, SD) PK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) CK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TPK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) PCK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TCK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TPCK
(𝐗𝐗�, SD) TPACK (𝐗𝐗�, SD)
Tutor 33 2.92,.743 3.88,.599 3.58,.514 3.27,.711 3.77,.554
3.22,.953 2.93,.798 3.37,.505 Assistant- Lecturer 18 2.62,.866
3.90,.741 4.01,.665 3.63,.729 4.21,.546 3.59,.890 3.31,.652
3.61,.471
Lecturer 57 2.37,.904 3.76,.826 3.61,.674 3.25,.713 3.99,.749
3.49,.976 3.15,.693 3.37,.551 Total 108 2.58,.878 3.82,.745
3.67,.641 3.32,.722 3.96,.675 3.43,.957 3.11,.726 3.41,.528
The results of the analysis disclosed that the mean of tutors
overtook that of assistant lecturer and lecturer in TK dimension.
Likewise, the mean of assistant lecturer outdid that of tutors and
lecturers in all the dimensions except TK whereas the mean of
tutors was at the bottommost in the dimensions of CK, PCK, TCK and
TPCK, and the means of lecturers were also at the lowest level in
the dimensions of TK, PK and TPK. All things considered, the mean
of assistant lecturer (X�= 3.61) outperformed others who had the
same mean (X�= 3.37). Hence, it can be interpreted
Table 8. ANOVA table comparing teacher educators’ TPACK with
respect to their degree Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Mean TK Between Groups 8.035 3 2.678 3.741 .013* Within Groups
74.462 104 .716
Total 82.497 107
Mean PK Between Groups .984 3 .328 .583 .627 Within Groups
58.468 104 .562
Total 59.451 107
Mean CK Between Groups 2.479 3 .826 2.070 .109 Within Groups
41.521 104 .399
Total 44.000 107
Mean TPK Between Groups 2.038 3 .679 1.316 .273 Within Groups
53.691 104 .516
Total 55.729 107
Mean PCK Between Groups 2.759 3 .920 2.083 .107 Within Groups
45.928 104 .442
Total 48.687 107
Mean TCK Between Groups .979 3 .326 .350 .789 Within Groups
96.984 104 .933
Total 97.963 107
Mean TPCK Between Groups 2.743 3 .914 1.774 .157 Within Groups
53.608 104 .515
Total 56.351 107
Total Mean TPACK Between Groups 1.237 3 .412 1.503 .218 Within
Groups 28.543 104 .274
Total 29.780 107 Note. *p< .05
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
170
that assistant lecturers used their TPACK in their profession
more than others while the applications of TPACK of tutors and
lecturers were at the same level.
One way ANOVA and Post hoc Multiple Comparison Test were used
with the aim of exploring the statistically significant difference
among the application of TPACK in terms of their ranks in Education
Degree Colleges.
The results of the analysis revealed that there was no
statistically significant difference among the teacher educators’
application level of TPACK with respect to their rank, F (2, 105) =
1,524, p= .223. But, statistically significant differences among
those were found in the dimensions of technological knowledge and
content knowledge, F (2, 105) = 4.333, p= .016 and F (2, 105) =
3.231, p= .043 respectively (see Table 10). The effect sizes,
calculated using eta squared, were .07 in TK and .05 in CK.
Additionally, the result of Post hoc Tukey HSD tests showed that
there were significant differences only between the groups of
tutors (X�=2.92) and lecturers (X�=2.37) in TK (p < .05).
Therefore, it can be interpreted that the application level of
TPACK among teacher educators did not differ in terms of their rank
but their technological knowledge and content knowledge were put
differently into practice.
Table 10. ANOVA table comparing the practice of teacher
educators’ TPACK in terms of their rank
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Mean TK Between Groups 6.289 2 3.144 4.333 .016* Within Groups
76.208 105 .726
Total 82.497 107
Mean PK Between Groups .468 2 .234 .417 .660 Within Groups
58.983 105 .562
Total 59.451 107
Mean CK Between Groups 2.551 2 1.275 3.231 .043* Within Groups
41.449 105 .395
Total 44.000 107
Mean TPK Between Groups 2.027 2 1.014 1.982 .143 Within Groups
53.702 105 .511
Total 55.729 107
Mean PCK Between Groups 2.401 2 1.201 2.724 .070 Within Groups
46.286 105 .441
Total 48.687 107
Mean TCK Between Groups 2.112 2 1.056 1.157 .318 Within Groups
95.851 105 .913
Total 97.963 107
Mean TPCK Between Groups 1.838 2 .919 1.770 .175 Within Groups
54.513 105 .519
Total 56.351 107
Total Mean TPACK Between Groups .840 2 .420 1.524 .223 Within
Groups 28.940 105 .276
Total 29.780 107 Note. *p< .05
Findings of the Practice of Teacher Educators’ TPACK in terms of
Department
Independent Samples t Test was used to make a comparison between
the two departments, academic and education, based on the
application level of teacher educators’ TPACK because the dependent
variable was normally distributed within each population (Morgan,
Leech, Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2011). In fact, there are three
main departments in Education Colleges;
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
171
Education, Academic and Co-curriculum. However, the participants
from the Co-curriculum department were very few compared to the
other two departments. For that reason, the participants of that
department were excluded from the study. Then, the participants
were divided into two groups (group 1; Academic, and group 2;
Education. The results were shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Comparison of the practice of teacher educators’ TPACK
in terms of their departments (n = 53 teacher educators from
academic departments and 55 teacher educators from education
departments)
Department M SD t df p Mean TK
1 Academic 2.73 .751
1.854 106 .067 2 Education 2.42 .967
Mean PK 1 Academic 3.86 .742
.576 106 .566 2 Education 3.78 .753
Mean CK 1 Academic 3.68 .614
.149 106 .882 2 Education 3.66 .672
Mean TPK 1 Academic 3.33 .694
.085 106 .933 2 Education 3.31 .753
Mean PCK 1 Academic 3.85 .601 -1.613 106 .110 2 Education 4.06
.730
Mean TCK 1 Academic 3.50 1.033
.755 106 .452 2 Education 3.36 .882
Mean TPCK 1 Academic 2.95 .682 -2.212 106 .029* 2 Education 3.26
.741
Total Mean TPACK
1 Academic 3.31 .513 .535 106 .594
2 Education 3.26 .539 Note. *p< .05
Table 11 showed that teacher educators from education
departments were significantly different from those from academic
departments in the dimension of TPCK (p = .029). Inspection of the
two group means indicated that the mean of TPCK practice of the
teacher educators from academic department (M = 2.95) was
significantly lower than that (M = 3.26) of teacher educators from
education departments. The difference between the means was 0.31
points on the dimension of TPCK. The effect size d is .04, which is
a small size for effects in the behavioral sciences. There were no
significant differences between the two groups in other dimensions
in addition to the total TPACK (see Table 11). As a consequence, it
can be interpreted that the practice of teacher educators’ TPACK in
their profession did not relate to which department they belong
to.
Findings of the Practice of Teacher Educators’ TPACK in terms of
Gender
To compare the gender on the practice of teacher educators’
TPACK, Independent Samples t Test was used.
The results showed that there was no significant difference in
TPACK between the groups divided by gender and even in any
dimension of TPACK as well (see Table 12). According to these
results, it can be interpreted that the difference in the
application level of teacher educators’ TPACK in their profession
did not relate to gender.
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
172
DISCUSSION
One of the findings of this study uncovered that the application
level of teacher educators’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK) had no significant difference among the selected
Education Colleges.
Moreover, the results revealed that different years of teaching
service and different degrees of teacher educators could not make
any difference in applying overall TPACK in their teaching, but
made a different level in using technological knowledge. These
results were consistent with the findings of Jang and Chang (2016)
which showed that there was no significant difference in overall
TPACK of physics instructors according to academic degrees but not
in line with one of his findings that indicated the statistical
significance in overall TPACK according to their teaching
experience. Moreover, the result of Ozudogru and Ozudogru (2019)
which showed no significant effect on TPACK by the year of teaching
experience and significant difference on technological knowledge
subscale was consistent with the finding of this study. On the
contrary, Akturk and Ozturk (2019) found that professional
experience of teachers made a significant difference in their TPACK
levels.
Likewise, one of the results highlighted that although various
levels of teacher educators’ rank could not make any contrast on
utilizing overall TPACK, they brought about a different applying
level of technological knowledge and content knowledge. Besides,
working in different departments gave rise to various application
levels in the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK)
subscale but not in all subscales of TPACK. The last finding which
is concerned with the gender of the participants showed that there
was no significant difference in not only using overall TPACK of
teacher educators but also applying knowledge of each dimension.
This finding was in line with many findings which reported that
there was no significant difference in the overall TPACK of
instructors/teachers in terms of gender (Akturk & Ozturk, 2019;
Jang & Chang, 2016). In contrast, the result of Ozudogru and
Ozudogru (2019) which showed significant differences between gender
was not consistent with the result of this study.
Furthermore, in comparing the means of teacher educators’ TPACK,
it was found that the teacher educators’ application levels of CK,
PK and PCK were higher than TK, TCK, TPK and TPCK levels. This
result was not deviated from the findings of Akturk and Ozturk
(2019) which
Table 12. Comparison of the practice of teacher educators’ TPACK
in terms of gender (n = 12 males and 96 females)
Department M SD t df p
Mean TK 1 Male 2.73 .957
.515 110 .607 2 Female 2.59 .899
Mean PK 1 Male 4.08 .324
1.271 110 .207 2 Female 3.80 .771
Mean CK 1 Male 3.58 .580
-.647 110 .519 2 Female 3.70 .654
Mean TPK 1 Male 3.58 .598
1.210 110 .229 2 Female 3.32 .739
Mean PCK 1 Male 4.04 .551
.425 110 .671 2 Female 3.96 .685
Mean TCK 1 Male 3.33 1.045
-.488 110 .626 2 Female 3.47 .948
Mean TPCK 1 Male 3.05 .891 -.488 110 .627 2 Female 3.15 .710
Total Mean TPACK
1 Male 3.38 .435 .498 110 .619
2 Female 3.30 .543
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
173
indicated that CK and PCK levels of teachers were at good levels
and the levels of TK, PK, TPK, TCK and TPACK were moderate.
Likewise, Alqurashi et al. (2016) mentioned in their paper that
pedagogy and pedagogical content knowledge were the highest mean
scores and technology and technological pedagogy knowledge were the
lowest mean scores of all the domains in studying teachers in USA
and Saudi Arabia. This was in line with the result of this
study.
In addition, those groups of teacher educators who had the
lowest and highest years of teaching service applied their TPACK
lower than the other two groups. In addition, it was found that
teacher educators who had higher educational level applied TPACK
more than those who had lower educational attainment. What is more,
the result mentioned that pedagogical content knowledge of teacher
educators increased gradually with respect to their teaching
experience and the young teacher educators applied much more
technological knowledge than the elders. This is consistent with
the result of Akturk and Ozturk (2019) that showed teachers who
have low teaching experience has higher TK than teachers who have
been working for 21 years or more.
The reason why teacher educators have lower TPACK level (as
means showed that they sometimes used their TPACK in their
teaching) may be that there is still lack of infrastructure in both
public schools and universities, especially access to technology.
Another point is that the teachers from both basic and higher
education did not have much opportunity to be familiar with
technology. The next problem is that most teachers from Myanmar
have many obstacles to use learner centered approach till now. The
reason may be because of the large class size, lack of materials,
insufficient teachers.
Dysart and Weckerle (2015) stated in his paper that new teachers
entered into teaching profession as experts in their discipline at
the university or college level, but did not always have experience
with pedagogical techniques or technological tools. The same
situation takes place in Myanmar as well. It is undeniable that
most teachers lack experience in both except those who graduated
from the Universities of Education. But, even they still have
insufficient technological knowledge. Thus, it is obvious that
insufficient pedagogical and technological knowledge in teachers
before their profession is one of the main reasons.
CONCLUSION
This study was carried out to investigate the TPACK-based
practice of teacher educators from the Education Colleges. The
findings revealed that the teacher educators applied their
knowledge related to technological subscales lower than pedagogical
content knowledge subscales in their teaching. In details, teacher
educators rarely applied their technological knowledge in their
teaching but other dimensions of TPACK were put into practice on
some occasions. However, the findings revealed that there was no
significant difference in the practice of overall Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge among the teacher educators in terms
of their Education College, experience, academic degree, rank,
department and gender. On the contrary, different applying levels
of technological knowledge were found among those teacher educators
with regards to their teaching experiences, degrees and ranks. In
addition, there were also significant differences of practices
among those in content knowledge subscale with respect to their
ranks and in the seventh subscale, technological pedagogical
content knowledge, with respect to their departments as well.
According to the results, it was disclosed that pedagogical content
knowledge of teacher educators became higher with the increase of
their experience. Moreover, the findings of this study highlighted
the need to upgrade the TPACK level of teacher educators in
Education Colleges in Myanmar to be effective in their
profession.
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
174
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is assured that the integration of technology in teaching
provides a considerable support to the learning and teaching
processes. Teacher educators who train prospective teachers should
integrate pedagogical approaches and technology in their teaching
which will assist student teachers to have a better understanding
of the content and educational practices. It means that teacher
educators’ TPACK-based practices can encourage teacher candidates
to apply these practices in their profession later. Thus,
professional development programs related to technology and
pedagogy trainings should be conducted as a mandatory for teacher
educators in education colleges. Moreover, to be able to apply
TPACK-based practices during teaching, the courses which emphasize
TPACK should be specific in the curricula of teacher education and
learning environments which provide more opportunity for the
pre-service teachers to practice.
LIMITATIONS
Although this study focused on the TPACK practice of teacher
educators from three Education Colleges, Yangon Region in Myanmar,
further researches should be carried out in other Education
Colleges and Academic Universities and in Basic Education Schools
as well. Furthermore, as this research was a quantitative study, a
qualitative study related to teachers’ TPACK should be carried out
to have a deeper understanding on that issue.
REFERENCES
Akturk, A. O., & Ozturk, H. S. (2019). Teachers’ TPACK
levels and students’ self-efficacy as predictors of students’
academic achievement. International Journal of Research in
Education and Science, 5(1), 283-294.
Alqurashi, E., Gokbel, E. N., & Carbonara, D. (2016).
Teachers’ knowledge in content, pedagogy and technology
integration: a comparative analysis between teachers in Saudi
Arabia and United States. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12514
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2015). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge exploring, developing, and assessing
TPCK. New York: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9
Can, B., Erokten, S., & Bahtiyar, A. (2017). An
investigation of pre-service science teachers’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge. European Journal of Educational
Research, 6(1), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.6.1.51
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Miller, C.
(2009). Using the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge
framework to design online learning environments and professional
development. J. Educational Computing Research, 41(3), 319-346.
https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.41.3.d
Dysart, S., & Weckerle, C. (2015). Professional development
in higher education: A model for meaningful technology integration.
Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in
Practice, 14, 255-265. https://doi.org/10.28945/2326
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12514https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.6.1.51https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.41.3.dhttps://doi.org/10.28945/2326
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
175
Goradia. (2018). Role of educational technologies utilizing the
TPACK framework and 21st century pedagogies: Academics’
perspectives. IAFOR Journal of Education, 6(3), 43-61.
https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.6.3.03
Jang, S.-J., & Chang, Y. (2016). Exploring the technological
pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) of Taiwanese university
physics instructors. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 32(1), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2289
Karaca, F. (2015). An investigation of preservice teachers’
technological pedagogical content knowledge based on a variety of
characteristics. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(4),
128-136. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n4p128
Keser, H., Yılmaz, F. G. K., & Yılmaz, R. (2015). TPACK
competencies and technology integration self-efficacy perceptions
of pre-service teachers. Elementary Education Online, 14(4),
1193-1207. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.65067
Kiray, S. A. (2016). Development of a TPACK self-efficacy scale
for preservice science teachers. International Journal of Research
in Education and Science (IJRES), 2(2), 527-741.
https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.64750
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological
pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology
and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Kou, N. C. (2015). Action research for improving the
effectiveness of technology integration in preservice teacher
education. I.e.: Inquiry in Education, 6(1), 1-19.
Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2012). Understanding
and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (2nd
ed.). AW Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-821-6
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.
Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K.
C. (2011). IBM SPSS for introductory statistics: use and
interpretation (4th ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis Group,
LLC.
Nordin, H., & Ariffin, T. F. T. (2016). Validation of a
technological pedagogical content knowledge instrument in a
Malaysian secondary school context. Malaysian Journal of Learning
and Instruction, 13, 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2016.13.1.1
Özdemir, M. (2006). An examination of techno-pedagogical
education competencies (TPACK) of pre-service elementary school and
preschool teachers. Journal of Education and Training Studies,
4(10), 70-78. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i10.1816
Ozudogru, M., & Ozudogru, F. (2019). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge of mathematics teachers and the
effect of demographic variables. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 10(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.512515
Padmavathi, M. (2017). Preparing teachers for technology based
teaching learnign using TPACK. I-Manager’s Journal on School
Educational Technology, 12(3), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.12.3.10384
Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). The Turkish Online Journal
of Educational Technology, 10(1), 97-105.
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.6.3.03https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2289https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n4p128https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.65067https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.64750https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-821-6https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.xhttps://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2016.13.1.1https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i10.1816https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.512515https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.12.3.10384
-
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 11(2), 159-176 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829 - TYPE: Research Article
176
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in
teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of
the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Correspondence: Win Thinzarkyaw, PhD Candidate, School of
Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China. E-mail:
[email protected]
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.660829https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411mailto:[email protected]
INTRODUCTIONIMPORTANCE OF THE STUDYREVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATUREPURPOSESRESEARCH QUESTIONSRESEARCH METHODResearch
DesignScope of the StudySample of the
StudyInstrumentsProcedureAnalysis of the Data
RESEARCH FINDINGSFindings of the Practice of Teacher Educators’
TPACK in the Selected Education CollegesFindings of the Practice of
TPACK among the Teacher Educators according to their Education
CollegesFindings of the Practice of Teacher Educators’ TPACK in
terms of Teaching ServiceFindings of the Practice of Teacher
Educators’ TPACK in terms of their DegreeFindings of the Practice
of Teacher Educators’ TPACK in terms of RankFindings of the
Practice of Teacher Educators’ TPACK in terms of DepartmentFindings
of the Practice of Teacher Educators’ TPACK in terms of Gender
DISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONRECOMMENDATIONSLIMITATIONSREFERENCES